So I know it's really early on in the year but I'm starting this discussion early because things planned well in advance have a greater chance of being successful.

I have got 3 games planned for WSOP 2018:

WSOP Fantasy League

- Pick 10 players with a given salary and most POY points scored by a team wins.
- $20 entry
- Winner/High Finishers get money

WSOP PEEHS

- Prediction based questions will be asked and you have to come up with the most obscure correct answer
- Free to enter
- "2018 WSOP PEEHS Winner" as an undertitle for the winner (I have not checked this yet with the powers to be, but can't see too many problems with this

WSOP Guesstamania

- Numerical prediction based questions will be asked and you have to guess the answer. Closer you are to the actual answer then the better you score.
- Free to enter
- "2018 WSOP Guesstamania Winner" as an undertitle for the winner (I have not checked this yet with the powers to be, but can't see too many problems with this

If you want to make comments or suggest changes/improvements then this is the place and the time to do it.
If you play in the summer and point out to me how I should have done things differently then I will point you to this thread.

Working out the salaries is something I do each year and it's a real PITA for a few reasons:
1). There are a lot of players
2). There are a lot of slight name changes
3). There are POY formula changes practically every year and because I weight the past 3 years performance then it creates a lot of issues

I propose that I will use the GPI 2017 points only to determine the salaries. The salary will be one third of the 2017 points earned capped at 800 points. Every player will cost at least 75 points. You'll have 1500 points to spend on exactly 10 players. Highest GPI WSOP Points for their team wins.

Some potential issues I'm aware of:

-It gives some insane value for a player who regularly crushes but skipped the WSOP last year/had an off year.
-It vastly over prices people who ran hot last year.

But to both of those I'd argue that it's a level playing field and part of drafting your team is to realise who's good value and who's overpriced.

Other changes from last year will be what happens when your team is over budget:

Last year I would give you time to change it and if you didn't I'd remove players to make the team within the budget. Others rightly argued that if you wanted 9 players on your team then all you'd have to do is pick a 10th player, ignore requests to change the team and then wait for me to remove the 10th player. To prevent this potential angle If your team is over budget and you don't change it in time then I'll remove players until your team is within a budget of 1425.

Cliffs on changes from last year:

-2017 WSOP Points from the GPI used to calculate salaries
-GPI Points used to score the competition
-Overbudget teams will be more harshly dealt with

I propose that I will use the GPI 2017 points only to determine the salaries. The salary will be one third of the 2017 points earned capped at 800 points. Every player will cost at least 75 points. You'll have 1500 points to spend on exactly 10 players. Highest GPI WSOP Points for their team wins.

Alternatively, perhpas could you base the salaries on the overall GPI rankings from last year? This would lessen, but not totally eliminate, the relative effect of last year's WSOP.

i.e. a great player who didn't do much at the 2017 WSOP (or skipped it altogether) would still have his/her other tournament results factored into his value. Similarly, a lesser player who happened to run hot at the Rio last spring would have his/her overall value reduced.

Using the overall GPI rankings would raise the value of the likes of Bryn Kenney and Jason Koon, who were among the world's top tourney performers but ranked lower on the WSOP POY list; while reducing the value of players like, say, Chris Ferguson and Ray Henson.

Then once the teams are formed, you would proceed as planned: use the 2018 WSOP POY system to actually score the teams.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. As you said, the playing field remains level, and success comes down to identifying overpriced vs. underpriced players, regardless of the system. Just suggesting a possible system that might even out the differences.

Another possibility that might reduce your workload is to restrict the player pool to a specific list (e.g. only the top 300 from last year's GPI, or bracelet winners only). To be honest, I haven't thought it through as to whether this really saves you any work. But if it can reduce the "PITA" factor, then I'm all for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xander biscuits

Last year I would give you time to change it and if you didn't I'd remove players to make the team within the budget. Others rightly argued that if you wanted 9 players on your team then all you'd have to do is pick a 10th player, ignore requests to change the team and then wait for me to remove the 10th player. To prevent this potential angle If your team is over budget and you don't change it in time then I'll remove players until your team is within a budget of 1425.

I like it. It is effectively penalizing a team by reducing its cap by 75 points, which is fairly substantial in our league. Or you could really disincentivize over-budget neglect by removing players from the top down.

I appreciate both ideas but I'm not really sold on either of them to be honest.

I think if we use GPI yearly points instead of WSOP points then it's one too many steps removed from what we're judging people on. It involves different tournaments than the WSOP and only uses your best few tournaments to calculate it. It doesn't make anything easier for me and it doesn't seem to add much to the fantasy league other than making different players over/under valued.

I agree that limiting the pool of selectable players would make things easier for me, but it would dramatically reduce the enjoyment factor. It's a great feeling when you come up with a really good off-list player for your team.

The reason that the harsher penalty is in place for over budget teams isn't to punish people who are careless but to remove the potential angle. I don't feel vindictive enough to remove their highest value player out of spite.

I'm also very open to running this how people want it run. So if other people agree with Wilbury and disagree with me then please speak up and I'll change things to suit the players.

I've looked a little further at the sorts of teams you could make and I've come to the conclusion that 1/3 of last year's points is too high. If you picked anyone from your team from the top 50 then you'd be restricted to mostly unsalaried players for the rest of your team. There would also be no possibility in having 2 players from the top 100 in your team.

I'm in the UK. I have a UK PayPal Account that I've used perhaps twice in my life to send money for fantasy leagues. I'm not sure if there are fees to sending internationally. I would also like to know about potential pitfalls such as time/money restrictions or other security measures I should be taking when collecting money. Some help with this would be appreciated for a n00b. I'd normally just muddle through and figure it out as I go, but I obviously want to be responsible with the money of other people.

I also have a PokerStars account that I can collect money on which should be good for non Americans.

I would obviously pay people out on their preferred method of payment, but I figure there will be fees involved which I guess are unavoidable.

So long as this is true, then I'm happy with whatever you choose to do. You're the one doing all the work. When I ran WSOP fantasy leagues at PokerRoad, we had maybe 12-20 people and eight-person teams. So I totally appreciate how much effort you and the other spreadsheet warriors put into this!

As for your PayPal questions, I just looked up my own account to see my sending options to the UK. Looks like it costs 0.5 percent of the transaction amount, assuming I use my PayPal balance. EDIT: note that this could be of concern to you when it comes to awarding prizes at the end, as you would end up incurring a sizable fee from being the sender.